swansont

The classical view is matter has mass and takes up space. A deeper dive shows that it’s anything comprised of fundamental fermions. Bullshit. Back this up.

You are asking what physics says about a situation that is unphysical. Physics has nothing to say about it. No. Please don’t make stuff up and post it. Matter is a description; it has no units.

How do you “take away” the mass? It’s the energy it represents that matters, so it can’t just disappear. If you try and analyze a situation that violates physical law, you can’t get a valid answer.

No they aren’t. Taneda is wrong, and you’ve been provided rebuttals of this. Speed is length/time. Speed of gravity ≠ gravity itself Start a new thread to discuss how the speed of gravity has been determined

No. It’s not pure anything. E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 (for a particle at rest, this becomes the familiar E = mc^2) If m = 0, then E = pc You can also find this classically for electromagnetic waves

Unfortunately there are few things so outlandish that you can’t find a credentialed person so say/support it. (there are those with physics PhDs who question relativity, for example, and same for biology and evolution) At best it’s a sloppy description that caters to the lay crowd. But it’s wrong and has no place in a discussion striving to have some rigor. We frown on such piggybacking. If your question is not directed at/replying to the OP, it should be asked in a new thread.

Columbus wasn’t looking for a civilization that he didn’t know existed. AFAIK, neither did the proto Polynesians Remember that the context if this discussion is aliens finding us interesting or not, rather than stumbling across us by accident Where does the idea that I am obligated to respond to anything come from? You should ask for your money back.

Have we gone looking for a particular civilization despite not knowing, and having no evidence, that it’s there?

You haven’t given sufficient detail for me to specify anything. I can’t critique a theory/conjecture/idea that has no detail. You say “generation ship” and I’m asking “how does that work?” You (and/or others) start filling in those details and then I’ll be specific. But asking me to specify when you haven’t is just not a fair bargain. I posted specifics in the other thread, so I’ll thank you to stop pretending I haven’t addressed this

What assumptions are invalid?

If I’ve set the bar low, that’s more of an indictment against those who haven’t responded to explore the new proposed technology

Which affects the path of the light.

No such thing as pure energy. Photons - massless- have energy, and also linear and angular momentum. All three are properties, not substances.

Gravity bends light.

Potato, potahto. How can it be ignorant if you can’t/don’t point to any knowledge that would erase that ignorance? What is this missing information? As exchemist has noted, it’s not there are unknowns, as with Lord Kelvin - you would directly contradict known physics, with no basis for doing so. As with others, you point to “solutions” without any consideration of the details involved. Again, I invite you to do some analysis on the technical solutions you present. Absent that it’s just plots from sci-fi stories.

It’s changes in gravity that one would discuss. Gravitational waves propagate at c, as MigL notes above.

You are free to present an analysis showing the folly of the position. I have asked others to do so, and have found no takers.

Finding someone in contempt is not the same thing as bringing criminal charges for the acts being brought to light, which was the context of the discussion.

The problem is finding an impartial jury. All you need is one secret Trump supporter voting to acquit regardless of whatever volume of evidence is presented.

It’s a false dichotomy. Geology is more subtle than these archaic either/or descriptions. Models that are in the process of being formed are often incomplete and get modified as more information comes to light

Where do your quotes come from?

My understanding is no; the criminal charges have to come from the department of justice. The J6 hearings are bringing information to light, some of which (apparently) was previously unknown to the DoJ. The hearings may also serve to light a fire under their asses to bring charges. Up until now the public focus has been on the folks that breached the capitol, with nary a peep about the ones who were serving in government, and IMO that's not a good look, since it seems that just about everybody on the GOP side was in on it. Since he's accused others of doing that and it seems like all accusations have been projection of things he/they have done, no. Not at all surprised.

I measure the states of laser-cooled atoms and any kind of outside perturbation affects the results, so there is no outside direct connection or "engagement" with the atoms since that would screw up the results. This is true of a lot of physics; the observer effect is a known phenomenon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) Any observation that is unnecessary is to be avoided, since it is known that it will alter the results.

So no actual examples. Most of physics involves taking data that can't be done with humans - detecting photons, paths of particles, measuring a magnetic field, to name just a few. So introducing humans into such endeavors would compromise the quality of the experiment. If humans do something less well than the devices we use to make measurements, that introduces bias, by definition. You say otherwise but can't back that up. at. all. And again, I see no connection to what I am discussing, in rebuttal to your claim. I'm pretty sure the photodiode I use to detect a photon signal is not conscious, so there is one example to show the falseness of your claim. I have others, if need be. I can walk through many aspects of an apparatus I have running, and where no humans are involved.

Suspension didn't make a dent. This has been upgraded to a permanent vacation.